5 ms·

> No one should have to hand over their driver’s license just to access free websites. This feels weird in a society where you can require government id to buy

by Spivak 4y ago

> No one should have to hand over their driver’s license just to access free websites. This feels weird in a society where you can require government id to buy alcohol, get on a plane, fly a plane, leave the country, access the legal institution of marriage, get professional licensure, own property, hunt on federal land, buy a gun, use ham radio -- the last one is literally restricting digital communications. I'm not happy about this but we've kinda jumped the shark with this one, even more so with states gunning for voter id laws. If producing your government id to vote, literally the most fundamental political speech, is constitutional then websites have no chance. Also good lord this is unbelievably sneaky wording. > COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, which included an age verification requirement. It was struck down as unconstitutional nearly twenty years ago for limiting the First Amendment rights of adults. COPA wasn't struck down because the age verification violated 1A. Law to add new tax on chocolate and forbid women from voting was struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional, US right to chocolate affirmed.

jolmg 4y ago
> This feels weird in a society where you can require government id to buy alcohol Other examples notwithstanding, showing id to buy alcohol doesn't really affect your anonymity because it's a 2-second face-to-face interaction. You can be reasonably sure there's no chance of all the id's containing information to stay in their systems indefinitely. Even immediately after putting the id back in your pocket, even the cashier themselves probably doesn't have any idea who you are, just that they've verified you're over the legal age for drinking. For most of your other examples, you're showing your id to institutions of your government. That's different than showing your id to private entities. With regards to showing your id when flying on a commercial airline, there's very few airlines when compared to number of websites, they're highly regulated, etc. Institutions of government, highly regulated private entities of huge proportions with huge liabilities, they all get different levels of trust when compared to random websites from who-knows-what jurisdictions.
- bediger4000 4y ago
  In Colorado some liquor stores scan the barcode on your ID, so showing ID to buy liquor isn't a 2 second perfunctory check, but instead another time and place piece of info to add to the dossier about you
  - jolmg 4y ago
    I don't think I'd let a random shop scan my ID, especially for something as unimportant as alcohol. A barcode doesn't sound like it stores much, but the potential for ID theft is something I would think anyone is cautious to avoid.
    - varispeed 4y ago
      > I don't think I'd let a random shop scan my ID, especially for something as unimportant as alcohol. That's how Overton window is moving. First is something "unimportant" and slowly slowly transitioning to more important things.
t-writescode 4y ago
Voting *anonymously* on a region-wide ballot by providing a government id is very, very different from: going to * cancer-treatment..org * trans-healthcare..com * spousal-abuse-protectionservices..com * xxx-gaystuff..com with your government id, especially when those lists are leaked.
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  * emergency-contraceptives..org * protest-overreach..org
- Spivak 4y ago
  I get the sense that you think I disagree you. I don’t like this law AND I don’t think there’s a strong case for striking it down as unconstitutional under 1A because voting is way more protected than visiting a website. The best case for striking this down would have been the right to privacy but the current supreme court gutted that.

by Spivak 4y ago

jolmg 4y ago

> This feels weird in a society where you can require government id to buy alcohol Other examples notwithstanding, showing id to buy alcohol doesn't really affect your anonymity because it's a 2-second face-to-face interaction. You can be reasonably sure there's no chance of all the id's containing information to stay in their systems indefinitely. Even immediately after putting the id back in your pocket, even the cashier themselves probably doesn't have any idea who you are, just that they've verified you're over the legal age for drinking. For most of your other examples, you're showing your id to institutions of your government. That's different than showing your id to private entities. With regards to showing your id when flying on a commercial airline, there's very few airlines when compared to number of websites, they're highly regulated, etc. Institutions of government, highly regulated private entities of huge proportions with huge liabilities, they all get different levels of trust when compared to random websites from who-knows-what jurisdictions.

bediger4000 4y ago
In Colorado some liquor stores scan the barcode on your ID, so showing ID to buy liquor isn't a 2 second perfunctory check, but instead another time and place piece of info to add to the dossier about you
- jolmg 4y ago
  I don't think I'd let a random shop scan my ID, especially for something as unimportant as alcohol. A barcode doesn't sound like it stores much, but the potential for ID theft is something I would think anyone is cautious to avoid.
  - varispeed 4y ago
    > I don't think I'd let a random shop scan my ID, especially for something as unimportant as alcohol. That's how Overton window is moving. First is something "unimportant" and slowly slowly transitioning to more important things.

t-writescode 4y ago

Voting *anonymously* on a region-wide ballot by providing a government id is very, very different from: going to * cancer-treatment..org * trans-healthcare..com * spousal-abuse-protectionservices..com * xxx-gaystuff..com with your government id, especially when those lists are leaked.

MacsHeadroom 4y ago
* emergency-contraceptives..org * protest-overreach..org
Spivak 4y ago
I get the sense that you think I disagree you. I don’t like this law AND I don’t think there’s a strong case for striking it down as unconstitutional under 1A because voting is way more protected than visiting a website. The best case for striking this down would have been the right to privacy but the current supreme court gutted that.